Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bustamante vs. CA
Bustamante vs. CA
*
G.R. No. 89880. February 6, 1991.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
604
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a8f0bc182a02569c5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/11
7/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 193
605
court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck
from liability.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a8f0bc182a02569c5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/11
7/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 193
606
the truck was heading towards his lane. Not minding this
circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck
was merely joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third
gear in order to give more power and speed to the bus,
which was ascending the inclined part of the road, in order
to overtake or pass a Kubota hand tractor being pushed by
a person along the shoulder of the highway. While the bus
was in the process of overtaking or passing the hand
tractor and the truck was approaching the bus, the two
vehicles sideswiped each other at each other’s left side.
After the impact, the truck skidded towards the other side
of the road and landed on a nearby residential lot, hitting a
coconut tree and felling it.” (Rollo, pp. 48-50)
After a careful perusal of the circumstances of the case,
the trial court reached the conclusion “that the negligent
acts of both drivers contributed to or combined with each
other in directly causing the accident which led to the
death of the aforementioned persons. It could not be
determined from the evidence that it was only the
negligent act of one of them which was the proximate cause
of the collision. In view of this, the liability of the two
drivers for their negligence must be solidary. (Rollo, pp. 50-
51) Accordingly, the trial court rendered a deci-
607
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a8f0bc182a02569c5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/11
7/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 193
“The defendants are also required to pay the plaintiffs the sum
of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs of the suit.
“The cross-claim of defendant Novelo is hereby allowed, and
defendants Magtibay and Serrado, the actual owners and/or
operators of the passenger bus concerned, are hereby ordered to
indemnify Novelo in such amount as he may be required to pay as
damages to the plaintiffs.
“The cross-claims and counter-claims of the other defendants
are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
“SO ORDERED. “ (pp. 55-57, Rollo)
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a8f0bc182a02569c5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/11
7/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 193
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a8f0bc182a02569c5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/11
7/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 193
610
that “the record also discloses that the bus driver was not a
competent and responsible driver. His driver’s license was
confiscated for a traffic violation on April 17, 1983 and he
was using a ticket for said traffic violation on the day of the
accident in question (pp. 16-18, TSN, July 23, 1984). He
also admitted that he was not a regular driver of the bus
that figured in the mishap and was not given any practical
examination. (pp. 11, 96, TSN, supra).” (Rollo, p. 96)
The respondent Court quoting People v. Vender, CA-
G.R. 11114-41-CR, August 28, 1975 held that “We are not
prepared to uphold the trial court’s finding that the truck
was running fast before the impact. The national road,
from its direction, was descending. Courts can take judicial
notice of the fact that a motor vehicle going down or
descending is more liable to get out of control than one that
is going up or ascending for the simple reason that the one
which is going down gains added momentum while that
which is going up loses its initial speeding in so doing.”
On the other hand, the trial court found and We are
convinced that the cargo truck was running fast. It did not
overlook the fact that the road was descending as in fact it
mentioned this circumstance as one of the factors
disregarded by the cargo truck driver along with the fact
that he was driving an old 1947 cargo truck whose front
wheels are already wiggling and the fact that there is a
passenger bus approaching it. In holding that the driver of
the cargo truck was negligent, the trial court certainly took
into account all these factors so it was incorrect for the
respondent court to disturb the factual findings of the trial
court, which is in a better position to decide the question,
having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment.
The respondent court adopted the doctrine of “last clear
611
——o0o——
613
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a8f0bc182a02569c5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/11